Tough Break D'Antoni! LMAO! Could've had #1 pick and the Bulls roster! Now has Knicks roster with pick #6! LMAO!!!!!!!!

come on give him a break the number one pick isnt always the best.

dude oakland

having number one pick isnt always the best nice to have but not always the best. take the 2005 draft I would rather monta (2 rounder) then A. bogut he is having a decent career, but take monta any day.

xbay wrote:Well when you're projected to get the 3rd pick and have the third best chance at landing the first overall pick, but you end up falling three spots, then you're pretty much a loser of the lottery.

you make a very good point, but you never know this good be the best thing that has ever happened to them

Tough Break D'Antoni! LMAO! Could've had #1 pick and the Bulls roster! Now has Knicks roster with pick #6! LMAO!!!!!!!!

come on give him a break the number one pick isnt always the best.

dude oakland

having number one pick isnt always the best nice to have but not always the best. take the 2005 draft I would rather monta (2 rounder) then A. bogut he is having a decent career, but take monta any day.

Yes..............but isnt this for the 2008 draft???.............with Beasley and Rose available at the top 2???.................hmmmm, I think Id prefer a shot at either of them than the 6th pick.

Tough Break D'Antoni! LMAO! Could've had #1 pick and the Bulls roster! Now has Knicks roster with pick #6! LMAO!!!!!!!!

come on give him a break the number one pick isnt always the best.

dude oakland

having number one pick isnt always the best nice to have but not always the best. take the 2005 draft I would rather monta (2 rounder) then A. bogut he is having a decent career, but take monta any day.

Yes..............but isnt this for the 2008 draft???.............with Beasley and Rose available at the top 2???.................hmmmm, I think Id prefer a shot at either of them than the 6th pick.

what if those two are bust. then it could of been a blessing. your probably right i would rather want the top pick there could be guy who picks up his game after college and his a flat out monster. rose and beasley are pretty great but it does not translate to having a great career. i would still pick them though.

pretty convaluted logic there oakland. Nobody can predict with any great degree of certainly who will be busts or not. That is like saying when we drafted Monte Ellis in the 2nd round that the best spot to be in the draft was pick 40 or wherever we picked him... that is nonsense.

It is ALWAYS best to pick first because then you have COMPLETE control to pick the player you want rather than hoping someone falls to you. There is a greater chance at a bust at pick 6 than pick 1 anyway.

Also, #1 is a valued and desired asset that you could trade away if you wanted.

at #6 you still get the chance to have control over drafting a really good, potentially great player. Oakland has a point in a way. It's not that they should be glad they don't have the 1 or 2 pick, but 6 gives some flexibility. At the same time, if i was slotted at 2 and moved down to 6, i'd be PISSED!

bada wrote:pretty convaluted logic there oakland. Nobody can predict with any great degree of certainly who will be busts or not. That is like saying when we drafted Monte Ellis in the 2nd round that the best spot to be in the draft was pick 40 or wherever we picked him... that is nonsense.

It is ALWAYS best to pick first because then you have COMPLETE control to pick the player you want rather than hoping someone falls to you. There is a greater chance at a bust at pick 6 than pick 1 anyway.

Also, #1 is a valued and desired asset that you could trade away if you wanted.

I still would picl beasley or rose but I'm defending mike cause i like him. number 6 is not to bad so.